It seems like the solution here is "get more doctors through medical school if some want to work part time", but instead they came up with this discriminatory solution.
It seems like the solution here is "get more doctors through medical school if some want to work part time", but instead they came up with this discriminatory solution.
The biggest issue here is that the government has effectively fixed the price to become a doctor at $200,000 (via stupid requirements) which in turn, fixes the price they must charge patients in order to be profitable. This is in addition to all the unnecessary requirements artificially restricting the supply.
Consider Cuba. In 2016, they were spending $813/yr per person while the US was spending $9,403 per person. Despite this, life expectancy was/is about equal. They graduate loads more doctors than the US. Most of these doctor's don't specialize, but instead become primary care physicians. When there are a lot of them, the cost to visit your doctor for day-to-day complaints decreases and disease is caught and treated much earlier (an ounce of prevention).
Degree inflation is a real killer here. A doctor must have a Batchelor's because it was decided that nurses should have one (though everything past the first 2 years makes basically zero difference on the floor). Then there's a huge middle area, so we train nurses to be not-quite doctors in an attempt to deal with the problem, but the schooling requirements for everyone just keep soaring.
Eliminate the Batchelor's requirement and instead require only the classes that are actually pre-requisites for med school. These are more than sufficient to weed out all the really unqualified individuals, but would reduce the cost of schooling by many tens of thousands (allowing lower charges to patients) and reduce the time-to-market by 3-4 years.
That time to market is extremely important. That's an extra 3-4 years of work before retirement. That's also an extra 3-4 years of experience (experience often being the most important thing) and those years are shifted earlier to when learning is easier. For more dexterous (eg, surgical) professions with long residencies, that 3-4 years is a huge amount of the useful lifespan.
Finally, open a few more medical schools to allow more doctors to be trained. With lower costs and faster time to market, costs for all medical visits (but especially primary care).
The only potential concern here is "unqualified people", but none of the tests have changed. Med school hasn't gotten easier either. The big change is more people are able or willing to give it a try and the risk is much lower.
I'm guessing you mean per capita...?
> A doctor must have a Batchelor's because it was decided that nurses should have one
I'm not sure where you got that from. Nursing going to the BS model is extremely new compared to physicians doing so.
> open a few more medical schools to allow more doctors to be trained
The hold-up here is on training positions. New schools are opening every year, but that's just exacerbating the problem on graduation - we're getting to having (we might already be there, I'd have to check the numbers again) more graduates than we have training positions.
Medical colleges in india don't require a bachelor's degree.
also, no residency requires a bachelor's degree.
also, bachelor's degrees don't have to be expensive... people going into 200k debt to become doctor's are mostly over paying. The acceptance rate for 1st time applicants to med school in usa is around 50%. You can get a bachelor's from anywhere and get in, if you know you can do well on the mcat.
That's probably average combining undergrad and medical school. I go to one of the cheapest medical schools in the country, and it's > $240k in loans alone, let alone interest (plus the $130k from undergrad for me)
And that’s without the hope scholarship which anyone getting into MED school in georgia likely qualifies for making (gpa >3.0)
Most state schools are not that expensive at least for their residents.
In any case, that's tuition alone, and at one public medical school in one state (i.e. most people applying to medical school each year won't qualify for that price; caveat is other states with low prices, such as Texas medical schools, which are routinely the cheapest in the country, but also take >95% instate residents).
Also, my medical schools calculates another $30k in fees and living expenses per year.
Here's another datapoint for you: SUNY Upstate in New York. Tuition alone for instate residents: $43k. Taken from: http://www.upstate.edu/currentstudents/document/com_budget_y...
I'm actually curious now what the costs are for each states' public schools. I can't seem to find a single reference for that though.
What Cuba does not have, making this possible:
- huge, huge administrative overhead. Both at the healthcare providers themselves and in the insurance sector. In addition, "rich" patients are not needed to subsidize care for patients who are uninsured/underinsured/cannot pay in full.
- obesity: 35% of US population is morbidly obese compared to 25% of Cuban population. Obesity is a massive driver of medical issues.
- "perverse incentives" where doctors are financially incentivized or, worse, forced by administration to e.g. operate on a patient when conventional therapy would be sufficient (this problem is also endemic in Germany, e.g. https://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/gesundheit/Kaputtes-Knie-Muessen...)
- CYA policies, e.g. when out of fear for malpractice lawsuits, unnecessary tests/labwork are done on the patient
- malpractice lawsuits/damage awards driving insurance premiums through the roof
- a tendency, especially in elderly people, to prolong their life at immense cost, even if it only brings them half a year in utter misery and pain (which is fine from an ethics point of view, intensive care at that level is just expensive as hell)
- hard drug addictions across wide swaths of the population. Smoking and drinking are bad enough but only the US has a huge problem with hardcore drug addicts. They cause cost in the system due to e.g. overdose treatments or contamination-caused complications
- large amounts of homeless/untreated mentally ill people, who often enough
- only come to a clinic when their health is so fucked that it's enormously expensive to nurse them back to health (aka on the brink of death)
- have their illness cause injury in other persons (e.g. due to fights)
- are directly affected by a lack of protection from the elements (e.g. freezing in winter, lack of shade in summer, lack of hygiene during the whole year)
- "abuse" medical resources to have a warm bed (which I'm not mad about, everyone deserves a warm bed, it's just a mis-allocation of resources contributing to the high costs for everyone else)can anyone refute this? it sounded a bit too slick to me, but I don’t know enough to say if it’s true/false.
Source: ex-USSR experience.
This is a false dichotomy. They would have more medical services overall if they simply admitted the right amount of female applicants and then expand their training programs overall so that the less-qualified male applicants who are currently getting preferential treatment can simply train elsewhere to become doctors. Sure some female doctors might work less, but some won't, and there would still be more qualified medical professionals in the field overall.
If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN, we'd appreciate it.